## Facts

- Gilda Tesser, a Jewish assistant principal in New York City Community School District 21, sought appointment as a school principal.
- During the selection process, some parents allegedly opposed her candidacy based on her Jewish faith, and Tesser complained to Superintendent Donald Weber that the opposition was anti-Semitic.
- Weber did not recommend Tesser for the principalship, citing concerns about her ability to work with the school community; a non-Jewish candidate was selected.
- Tesser retained counsel during the selection dispute; she alleged Weber criticized her decision and later retaliated against her for complaints of discrimination.
- Tesser was reassigned to P.S. 128 and alleged adverse changes to her duties and work conditions.
- Tesser filed internal and administrative complaints asserting religious discrimination and retaliation; an administrative agency later granted her “whistle-blower” status.
- After a two-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendants on all remaining Title VII and NYCHRL claims.
- Tesser moved post-trial for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence compelled judgment as a matter of law for Tesser on her Title VII and NYCHRL religious-discrimination and retaliation claims, notwithstanding the jury’s defense verdict.
2. Whether a new trial was warranted because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or resulted from alleged errors, including short deliberations, limits on rebuttal, evidentiary rulings, or defense summation remarks.

## Decision

- The court denied Tesser’s Rule 50 motion, holding she did not meet the heavy burden required to set aside the jury’s verdict.
- The court denied Tesser’s Rule 59 motion, finding it was not persuaded the verdict was seriously erroneous or a miscarriage of justice.
- The court held that credibility determinations and competing inferences from the evidence were for the jury and the verdict was supported by the record.
- The court rejected challenges based on the jury’s deliberation length, concluding there is no required minimum deliberation time and the circumstances did not show prejudice or failure to follow instructions.
- The court found no reversible prejudice from limits on rebuttal, evidentiary admissions (including in light of limiting instructions and harmless-error principles), or defense counsel’s summation when viewed in context with curative instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 50 relief is available only when, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, there is a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict such that reasonable jurors could reach only one conclusion.
- Rule 59 permits the court to weigh evidence, but a new trial is appropriate only when the court is convinced the jury reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict is a miscarriage of justice.
- Courts should rarely disturb a jury’s credibility determinations; where liability turns on witness credibility and competing explanations, post-trial relief is disfavored.
- In Title VII discrimination and retaliation cases, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove intentional discrimination or retaliation; the jury may accept defendants’ non-discriminatory explanations and reject pretext arguments.
- Alleged trial errors justify a new trial only if they likely affected substantial rights; limiting instructions and substantial independent supporting evidence can render errors harmless.

## Conclusion

The court left the defense verdict intact, holding that the evidence permitted reasonable jurors to reject Tesser’s discrimination and retaliation theories and that none of the asserted procedural or trial-management complaints justified judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.


Tesser v. Bd. of Educ., 190 F. Supp. 2d 430 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)